The city has faced pressure to improve its wastewater-treatment process since Oct. 1, 2010, when ADEQ issued a permit allowing three years to meet certain discharge limitations, including a reduced phosphorus count of 1 milligram per liter and newly introduced limits on zinc and copper.

• The wastewater-treatment plant, built in 1988, has failed to meet the phosphorus limit even with operational changes tried over the past three years.

• The plant was not designed to address the metal limitations.

The only solution apparent is to make improvements that could cost more than $1 million initially and from $2.5 million to $3.7 million over a 30-year period, depending on which option the city chooses.

All options come with the need to raise sewer rates.

“We have to have our water rates increased before we’ll be eligible for loans,” said Mayor Don Owens. “We have a $2.3 million bond right now, and if our water rates were higher we could have refinanced it at a lower rate and saved $110,000.”

Sherry Johnston, Waldron city clerk-treasurer, said when the city began to look into plant improvements several years ago, prices were considerably lower, and one proposal became known in conversation as the $750,000 option.

“Now the engineers have given us up-to-date estimates, and it’s up to $1.3 million,” she said. “It’s shocking how much the costs have gone up.”

Cost Analysis

Under a contract with the city authorized in January, Daniel Barnes, engineer with the Fayetteville office of McClelland, examined six options for improvements, ultimately recommending Option 5, filtration, and performing a cost analysis comparing it to two other options.

According to his analysis:

• Option 3, chemical precipitation, would cost $1.07 million to build and more than $3.5 million to operate over 30 years.

• Option 4, biological reactor conversion, would cost $1.38 million to build and more than $3.69 million to operate over 30 years.

• Option 5, filtration, would cost $1.18 million to build, coming in between the other two projects, and $2.47 million to operate over 30 years, considerably less expensive in the long term than the others.

In a letter to the editor that appeared in Friday’s edition of the Times Record, a Waldron resident argues that the chemical option would be cheaper and would not require an increase in sewer bills.

But Barnes disagreed, saying that chemical precipitation, which involves adding alum to the clarifiers or intermittent sand filters, produces so much sludge that installation and operation of a sludge press would have to be factored in.

“Sludge cost is really what drives that option,” Barnes said Friday. Although the equipment itself is comparatively inexpensive, it would have to be replaced three times in 30 years, negating the advantage of low up-front costs.

In contrast, the filtration option would involve replacing the existing sand filters with “appropriately focused” equipment that would only need to be replaced twice in 30 years, and the increase in sludge would be minimal.

Barnes stated in his report that the filtration option is the only solution that targets the heavy metals directly and does not pose the potential of reintroducing removed metals at the sludge-drying stage.

The new filters would be continuous or automated backwash filters instead of the current manually cleaned filters.

As for the question of sewer bills, Barnes said sewer rates would be raised to pay for any option.

“Look at it this way: The base rate covers debt service, and the per-gallon charge covers operation and maintenance,” Barnes said. “The rate increase for the filtration is actually lower than the one for the chemical option.”

For the filtration option, Barnes calculated an increase of $5.88 to the base sewer rate, which includes the first 2,000 gallons of water used, and 66 cents for each additional 1,000 gallons. The average residential customer using 4,000 gallons a month might see an increase in the monthly sewer bill of $7.20, “assuming the current rate structure is covering their current annual costs,” he stated in his analysis.

Johnston said the bill could increase by $8.52 a month if the city receives no grant money to help pay for the plant improvements.

Next Steps

Now that Barnes has completed and presented a preliminary engineering report to the Waldron City Council, he will forward the report to the Water and Wastewater Advisory Committee, a panel of people from state and federal regulatory and funding agencies.

“If you’re looking for a loan or grant to assist you, you have to show the funding agencies you have the ability to cover your debts,” he said.

Meanwhile, the City Council struggles to examine its options and determine the best path.

Alderman Travis Plummer said he is researching past cases involving Siloam Springs, Lincoln and Decatur to see what options they chose.

“Also, I want to make the public aware that these are important issues that we’re taking seriously. There are going to be rate increases no matter what option we choose. … But there’s a high poverty level, and we want to be sensitive to that,” Plummer said. He didn’t think he would be ready to choose an option at the March 11 meeting.

If the city goes with the filtration option and construction could not be completed by Oct. 1, Owens said he thinks a chemical option could be used to meet compliance in the interim.

Katherine Benenati, public outreach division manager for ADEQ, said Waldron’s case could be turned over to her agency’s enforcement division if the city misses the deadline.

“We work with cities on a case-by-case basis in the event they do not meet a deadline,” Benenati said. “That said, our deadlines are serious and important, and they’re there for a reason.”